Eldon-Online

Out Of The Shadows? ... Shadow Banking

2013-06-06T00:07:45+08:00

Regular readers of this Blog will know that I have an ongoing concern about the media, but the concern tends to be rather general because I have to acknowledge the fact that there are some excellent, responsible well-informed members of the media out there. Others hide their actual talent behind a disappointing desire to try and belittle their “victims” – perhaps hoping to provoke some sort of response to provide fodder for future columns. This, it seems, is the style favoured by the SCMP’s Jake van der Kamp. Witness last week’s attempt to ridicule the HSBC Group CEO, Stuart Gulliver, and to a lesser extent Douglas Flint the Chairman.

A point of disclosure, both Stuart and Douglas are good friends and former colleagues, so I don't deny I rather bridled at an attack on them personally, but I am writing neither in their defence nor at their request. In fact I suspect they will more than likely be embarrassed when they find out I have written anything at all. But this is not about Stuart or Douglas anyway – despite the fact that I am disappointed in Mr. van der Kamp’s cheap shots, but more about that columnist’s general remarks in the opinion piece he wrote. Particularly, for example, when he comments on the merits or otherwise of a video he says was aired at the beginning of the HSBC AGM. A video he admits he never saw because he knew "artistic expression reigned". Clever man our columnist, commenting on things he has not seen. Just the sort of uninformed opinion that is so irritating.

After such an opening I would, perhaps rather charitably on reflection, have then expected Mr. van der Kamp's opinion piece to focus on the two issues he raised - the convertibility of the RMB and Shadow Banking. However, he rather glossed over both rather condescendingly. What a pity he appeared not to have read the double spread article in his own newspaper on May 24, just 4 days earlier, headed "Setting the stage for a convertible currency". An article in which SCMP journalist Victoria Ruan commented on Beijing's efforts to make the yuan a convertible currency "for use in international trade and investment ..." This following on from a State Council announcement that yuan convertibility would be pushed forward this year. The article appeared to me to be balanced - pointing out the pitfalls as well as the benefits, and quoting a variety of sources. None of who seem to have been ridiculed by Mr. van der Kamp. I wonder why?

The commentary in Mr. van der Kamp's opinion piece then seemed to push hard the fact that China does things to suit its own purpose. Is there a country that doesn't? And asks the rhetorical question as to whether or not China is ready for internationalisation. The short answer of course, with a move as dramatic as this would be, is that markets will typically overreact and I do believe that China will get a shock. But I would not dismiss out of hand the fact that they have the intention to do it.

Oh yes; and then there's shadow banking. Of course if you want to get really picky, shadow banking comes in many forms, and at least one learned financial regulatory expert has said that regulated banking organizations are the largest shadow banks. Of course, in the context of Stuart Gulliver's remarks on the subject, we all knew he was referring to that unregulated area of banking in China, which is lending money into the market place that regulated banks won't fund. Mr. van der Kamp seemed to imply that it was a major problem for China, but didn't bother to tell us why. I think he's better than that - as some of his opinion pieces display, but this was just an out and out attack for the point of scoring points in a limited space.

In writing the opinion piece, I wonder how many regulators or people in China he spoke to, who have a better grasp of the issue, before making his "judgement". It's a bit like commenting on a film or video you haven't seen and providing a rating.

Well I have spoken to Regulators on the subject in China, and bankers, and practitioners. People who are highly intelligent and plugged in to the system. Is it a worry? Yes it is but is it being ignored and left untouched - no, it's not. This type of "banking" has gone on for centuries, and yes, not always successfully. I know banks that dabbled in it on the fringes not so long ago. They would lend to people they would trust, who would themselves then on lend to borrowers the Bank wouldn't lend to. The point being that the Bank's immediate customer knew intimately who they were dealing with and they took the risks. In China's shadow banking community non-bank funds are being lent to the shadow bankers who then on lend it at their risk to people who could not otherwise borrow the money for their business needs. So the shadow bankers are helping to keep people employed and the small business community operating. Is it ideal? No, of course it's not. Should it be regulated? Most definitely a resounding yes, but if it stifles small business, beware how much regulation you impose.

In the overall scheme of things if I was asked if it was a big risk – I would have to say that in my opinion, keeping everything in perspective, it is not.

Initially ...

2013-06-02T08:30:00+08:00

I was having one of those inane debates with myself the other day about the use of cc and bcc in messages on email. Why, I thought, do we still persist in using cc (carbon copy) when we are copying a message to someone else, when so many people around today have never even seen a sheet of carbon paper let alone used one. And of course the same goes for bcc (blind carbon copy). Why don't the Microsofts and Googles of this world change message formats to "ec", for email copy or perhaps being really innovative use "copy" or "copied" on its own? It's only two more letters.

While accepting a degree of pedantry in my thinking, (I know, get a life!) but to try and make sure I wasn't being totally antediluvian, I did ask a member of the next generation down for a view on the meaning to him of "cc" in an email - to which the reply came back "What's email? Everyone's on FB and WhatsApp!" Touché. And as is the case, even those as tools of messaging seem to be evolving. But then for good measure he threw in other anomalies like candle power to denote the strength of a torch beam, knots for the speed of a ship, and horse power in cars.

But it was too late. Clearly I was obsessed about initials.

Let's face it, the use of initials to create acronyms (An acronym is an abbreviation formed from the initial components in a phrase or a word) as a form of shorthand, is not new. Those of us belonging to that older generation known as baby boomers grew up with things like PLUTO no, not the planet, but which were initials for the "pipeline under the ocean" - a World War II pipeline, and SWALK and BURMA written on the back of letters, which I presume are no longer in use as we don't send any letters now, but the first means Sealed With A Loving Kiss. For others particularly like SNAFU, you will have to look up yourself. I try and avoid any profanity here! And they were in use much further back than that too - think of SPQR (Senatus Populusque Romanus), that catchy little acronym that identified the Roman Empire.

[Just as an aside, in a rather dismaying discovery I have just realised I am two months short of being considered in the baby boomer camp! Too old, even, for that. And in trying to find out exactly which category of dinosaur is was being labeled, some market research carried out by one of my sons elicited a great response from a young girl who was asked recently how she referred to really old people, to which she replied "Mum and Dad"! Ouch!]

But I digress. Back to the initials ... and before some pedant picks me up on the difference between acronyms and initials; I know! Acronyms are, as described above whereas initials are usually just abbreviations. But why spoil my fun?

Where do we go now? We are bombarded on the social networking sites with the latest initials, and the immediacy of the world in which we live is creating an informal and irritating manner of business communication. Some of the "newspeak" is understood easily even if you aren't sure, but some, rather like its creators I suspect, is somewhat ambiguous. I mean how was British Prime Minister Cameron supposed to know that "lol" meant laugh out loud instead of lots of love when he sent messages to former News of the World editor Rebekah Brooks? Although having said that I see "lol" has now also acquired the second meaning. But BTW, BBL, WFM and WTF are all finding their way into common usage - well maybe not the latter!

Soon will we be receiving letters from the Banks which will be short and uninformative? (Oh, they are already? Sorry!)

When I started this blog I thought perhaps we were doomed to a life of initial acronyms. Now I am certain. Especially given the one I came accros the other day that read: SSEWBA (Someday Soon Everything Will Be Acronyms)!

"Big Data" - Big Help or Big Problem?

2013-05-27T08:00:00+08:00

You just cannot be in business today without hearing the term "Big Data". Mind you, I blame the management consultants for producing yet another snazzy buzz phrase to tease their clients. To be clear, I am not against buzzwords just as long as they are relevant and convey the appropriate meaning. The "C-Suite", for example is pretty reasonable shorthand for the senior people in a company whose titles start with the letter "C" - Chairman, CEO, CFO, COO and so on. But this "Big Data" is leaving me somewhat cold by its ambiguity, and the real problem is that it has hit the C-Suite.

I heard a Chief Executive recently talking about the fact that he would in future have all the management information his company needed because they had embraced the idea of big data. He could save huge amounts of money because he would no longer need hordes of people like analysts in his back office, nor would he need to employ expensive management consultants. And because he had so much information he would be miles ahead of those companies that didn't understand big data. He was quite affronted when I suggested that big data might not be quite as much of a panacea as he was obviously thinking - and I spent the next 30 minutes discussing with him the merits - and otherwise, from my perspective! I hope I at least persuaded him that he might want to be asking quite a few more questions before he embraced it any further.

Don't get me wrong. I truly think that big data can be of enormous help to businesses - as long as it is understood and, even more importantly in my view, then used properly!

There are of course many people who know what big data is all about, (particularly at the working level) but for the less technically or business minded readers of my blog, let me just try an explanation.

Simply put, imagine the biggest reference library you have ever seen or can imagine, and multiply the size by at least ten times. Big data is like that. It is a collection of data so large that it becomes difficult to find what you are looking for by using traditional methods of database management. As a result, work that was previously being done by using analysts is now being handled through creating a series of algorithms that "interrogate" the data and spew out the information you need. Or you think you need. This, for the business community, could be used to spot business trends, seek out inefficiencies, and provide clues to current customer behaviour - leading perhaps to future trends (of course only as long as the conditions existing today remain unchanged!) Sounds good, doesn't it? And it is a big help.

So far, so good - but with the huge mass of information you are receiving who handles it, who "interrogates it", and who is then responsible for creating company strategy?

But there are a few basic things to remember here. Firstly, is all the information you think you need actually necessary to make some decisions, or are you just accumulating information that is of little real value? Secondly, who is creating the algorithms to interrogate the big data to provide the results? Until computers can think for themselves (and yes, I know it's coming), you will still need people to create the right algorithms. People who know the business, and therefore have the ability to ask the right "questions" Remember that old saying from Economics Nobel Prize Laureate, Ronald Coase (who by the way is 102 years old), who said "Torture the data, and it will confess to anything!" Quite!

From my point of view it is surely valid for consultants to be pushing big data as a concept to companies, but there is probably a better case to be made for those consultants who can successfully help in the creation of appropriate algorithms, in other words creating the right questions, and the subsequent interpretation of the answers. Heaven help many Boards of Directors if they are left to understand this stuff on their own. And yes - that includes me!

While we live in an increasingly technologically driven world, the users of that technology still only operate with human brains - which frankly have their limitations. So until we catch up, corporations need to realise that big data aside, much of the "little data" they have is still sufficiently powerful to enable them to do a better job for their clients, and therefore their businesses, than they are doing at present.

As one of my sons pointed out in a comment recently, how is it that a financial institution with whom he has had a relationship for 30 years still addresses him by mail as "Dear Valued Customer". They will have enough clues to realise that he is now married, since he has a joint account, should have an idea that he has children as they have accounts of their own, and with this should know - and be able to customise easily, suitable offers to him. We have the capability to do all this stuff today on "little data".

Other organisations do it - witness the slightly embarrassing story that came out of US retailer Target. (Do have a read - it's worth it, and it provides a lesson in what you can do today!)

So before we get hung up on big data, make a start by using more effectively the "little data" you already have.

But as for "Big Data"? - Sure, go for it and use it successfully but make darn sure those people in the Boardroom know what it's all about if they are being asked to commit millions of shareholder money in whatever currency into technology that might pay off - but might not if you don't use it properly!

You've Heard Of The Three "R's"? ... Read On

2013-05-23T12:03:00+08:00

What does the phrase "the 3Rs" mean to you? Chances are, depending on your age, you will recognise it as relating to a comment coined in the late 1700s, when Sir William Curtis referred to them as: Reading, Writing and Arithmetic. (No, I was not around at the time before you ask!). But even if you didn't know the phrase before, I am sure you will have picked up the irony of the fact that they don't all start with an "R". But they sound as if they do! Nearly.

So, moving swiftly to the 21st Century, I have an alternative version - not of "R"s, but "U"s - although sadly two of them do start with the letter "U" - but then we're not all perfect.

I refer to Unemployment, University and You.

First of all, what I am about to write is less likely to appear as an issue in Asia for some time to come, but then who knows..., particularly if unemployment becomes a more serious matter than it is already. The pressure on educating children in Asia has become quite obsessive and stressful to both children and parents, all in the hope that a great education, as long as you get into the right university in some countries, will lead to the best jobs. That is, as long as there are sufficient jobs to go round. But if not, then what happens?

Let me try and make some sense out of where my line of thinking is going. Succinctly.

In case you think I am having a go at universities in particular, but education in general, let me state categorically that education first and foremost is essential. A well educated world, starting with the children, are generally less likely to be proponents of war. If we neglect our duties to educate everyone, boys and girls, every race religion, beliefs, and colour, we are setting a bonfire that someone will light at some stage in the future.This is something acknowledged by a variety of leaders, many of them presiding over poorer countries or at least living in their shadow. Although this will take a long time, generations indeed, to achieve, it must nevertheless be undertaken.

In this Blog, though I am dealing with something more immediate. I am focused for the present on well-educated children who are joining a real world where there is a lack of jobs, and a growing phenomenon in the West by some potential University entrants to try and beat the system.

Simplistically, you earn good grades to secure a good University place. You work hard for three or four years to come out with a good degree. But you emerge into a market where jobs are hard to come by - and you have a pile of debt.

Unemployment in developed and developing economies is not a new phenomenon, but in many places it is too high and is stubbornly refusing to come down significantly. When you add to this the increasing use of technology in many workplaces, the cost of paying people, and therefore the substitution of jobs by "robots", you have a situation that is not going to add many jobs any time soon. But please remember I am being quite general here. I am not talking about the important specialisations such as the medical profession although even that over time will surely be taken over by technology. With unemployment in the USA and the UK both over 7.5%, France and Italy over 10.5%, Spain and Greece at a staggering 27% - and others, there are no "quick fixes". Factor in the demographics of the unemployed by age and you have a good number of young people making up a large percentage of the numbers.

So you come to the question of how are people getting round it. Easy. They are opting not to go to University!!

Now, if you speak to many people especially in Asia such an idea is almost heresy. (Heresy, as in any belief or theory that is strongly at variance with established beliefs or customs). And some Western friends are also somewhat sceptical that opting out of University is likely to work, but here's the thinking.

If you work hard at school and get good results, to the extent that you would have been offered a place at a decent University, you opt instead to go look for a suitable employer and immediately enter the work force. If you are lucky enough to find an employer of course. And heer we are back to the old system of learning on the job. You start the process of taking any relevant professional exams which, given a fair wind you should complete in 3 years. Then, when your peer group graduate from University straining under the burden of having to repay a large student loan and apply with the thousands of other graduates at the same time to your company for a job - guess what? They already have on their payroll a trained, qualified, bright committed employee (who is doubly happy because they have no debt!) Possible? Why not?

If employers get creative and open their doors to potential advancement for early joiners - rather than only fast-tracking University graduates - then I see the potential.

So, what is the You part of this? Well it can be you as in the potential University entrant trying to decide on a pre-emptive course of action to avoid the debt and unemployment trap, or it could be you as in a potential employer looking for talent early on in the workplace and not believing that only University graduates are the ones who can do a better job because they are supposed to be intellectually superior - or some such nonsense.

Mind you, as someone who left school at the age of 16 I suppose I might be slightly biased, and I used to feel a little disingenuous when trying to convince all my children they needed degrees to even get an interview!!

And You relates to every one of "us" really who is in a position to be open-minded about such a radical change, and also to do your bit to ensure we work towards an educated world.

New on the Menu - Rat of Lamb!

2013-05-12T00:17:11+08:00

Oh dear! There I was, just about to settle down to write a really exciting Blog either on why University candidates are opting out of going to Uni, or a small note on "Big Data" - the consultant's latest buzz word that is sweeping through a Boardroom somewhere near you when, hard on the heels of my last Blog about food - and China's aspirations to ensure its future food supplies from other parts of the world - along comes a tale (tail perhaps?) of skullduggery in the mainland's kitchens.

In case you missed it, recent news reports from China have highlighted the seizure of a gang that has been selling rat, fox and mink meat in the Eastern part of China - passing it off as lamb and mutton. Now I have never knowingly eaten a "joint of rat", but I don't care how much gunk and preservative you put on it surely a rodent would have a different taste and texture from what you were expecting? I would have imagined rat to be sort of stringy, even if it was thinly sliced - and surely the purchasers or users of the raw item must have ... well, smelt a rat when they saw the meat?

China, of course, has had a run of scandals in the last few years over food items that have been tainted. The most notorious being tainted milk. This has led to such concern in China that demand for powdered milk from places like Hong Kong and, I am told, even London has led to a restriction on the amount of powdered milk that can be bought by mainlanders in those cities to take back to China. And then there were the thousands of dead pigs floating downstream into Shanghai a month or two ago, having been dumped in the river. And there are other examples ... all of which make the United Kingdom's "horsemeat for beef" scandal look rather tame by comparison.

For the genuine storekeeper, restaurateur or whatever, don't you think they would know that a rat is a small rodent that feeds from old food and smelly bins, and carries fleas (amongst other things!)? Sheep, or more specifically lambs on the other hand, are soft and cuddly fluffy animals that mostly eat grass! If you can easily get the two mixed up then I would guess you are in the wrong business.

That said there was always the rumour being circulated amongst Westerners that Chinese people would eat anything that had its back to the sun. This neatly prohibited cannibalism because most of us walk upright. But judging by some of the things I have eaten over the years, that would not be considered totally normal to Western tastes, I think that the saying may be pretty accurate!

All of which leads me to attach a drawing courtesy of a good friend wth a gift for cartoons, and with apologies for "amending" what has become a well known saying emanating from China,

But the serious message is clearly this. In a country where the vast majority of people eat to live rather than live to eat, playing around with people's food is not clever, given the potential consequences. And when it happens too often, with different food items, and the public begins to question what the Government is doing about it to provide safeguards, and the social networks start buzzing, there is a serious risk of unrest. Weibo, the micro blogging service in China has something like 500 million registered users of which around 10% are active on a daily basis. If 50 million people start complaining, you get some idea of the impact a site like this can have, for good and bad! Really the ball is now very firmly in the Leaderhip's court, and I hope that demonstrable progress can be made to improve this situation.

I have for a long time said that I am much more concerned at the impact of social unrest in China than I am about things like the economy. And if people are afraid to eat what is put in front of them for fear it is tainted, they will get angry. And guess what comes next .....

So, maybe some ratatouille with the rat of lamb?

"Where The Sun Never Sets" - Under New Ownership?

2013-05-02T09:15:02+08:00

You may or may not be familiar with an often quoted phrase that reads "the Empire on which the sun never sets". The phrase was attributed to a writer in 1821 who was describing the extent of the British Empire as being a nation where at least some of their interests were in daylight at any given point in time. The origins of the phrase, historically, go back much further than the 19th Century of course. The Persian King Xerxes is said to have used a somewhat similar expression before invading the Greeks in the 3rd Century BCE. And in the modern era around the 16th and 17th centuries the phrase was applied to the Spaniards and the Portuguese. But are we about to witness a new "owner" for the phrase? China!

In this sense I do not mean that China is intent upon invading various countries around the world and imposing their rule on them, in the manner of the Europeans, but it follows a similar pattern as China searches the world for resources.

It doesn't matter which newspaper you read in whatever country, or which conference you attend on whatever subject, there is often an underlying "sameness" in the topics that are top of mind in discussions, and they reflect our world today and the future. The sort of thing that I am working with colleagues on at present as we try to look forward, and which apart from issues such as technology, demographic change and the rise of state-directed capitalism (okay, economic nationalism) also looks at the "war" for resources. And where China is concerned it is this last element, resources, that is giving rise to their possible accession to the role of being the country with interests that will be in daylight for 24 hours.

The forecasts come at you from all directions. Diets in China are changing rapidly, and as a result there is a greater demand than before for foods that would not normally have been a part of the staple diet. The demand for meat, for example, is growing rapidly meaning that water resources and feed for the cattle is needed. And in relation to cattle feed, more than 60% of the world's soya bean production is going to China. And then there is food consumption generally. Recent figures I have seen suggest that already more than 30% of global rice production, 25% of the world's corn and 50% of pork products are being exported to China.

The urbanisation of China has meant the conversion of agricultural land to use for building, resulting of course in the decline of land available to feed a growing population. No problem you say, China is a vast country and has lots of land, but only about 15% of China's land mass has been suitable for agriculture, mostly in the eastern half of the country. Even in 2008 the China Daily was reporting that arable land was barely above the critical minimum. so, with the reduction in that land, the population growth, the diminution of water supplies and a population with changing tastes for food, no wonder China is looking around the world for sustainable supplies of food.

And where are they looking? Try Africa for starters. Nations that have arable land which is underdeveloped, relatively small populations and an appetite for an infusion of development funds. Step up, China (and places like Qatar, as well).

Cooperation agreements have proliferated between China and African nations which will help China to secure food supplies for some time to come. The unknown elements that exist with these agreements include how long it will be before the African countries decide that China is taking too much of their natural resources - in this case food. Or a change of African Government decides that previous deals were "unfair" and want to renegotiate new deals. And if China has done nothing to reverse its own land shortage, and therefore has to pay up, it could be held to ransom but that's a longer term story.

Africa is not the only continent that attracts China. In Latin America, both Argentina and Brazil in particular have attracted Beijing's attention, although there is a little more scepticism about land purchases by foreigners in both countries. On that continent you find flights going to all corners of the region carrying Mainland Chinese on a mission. People ranging from the agricultural industry to their Bankers, singlehandedly searching out the best deals.

Of course it's not just food, it's other commodities too - minerals, high grade coal and, of course, oil. Do you ever wonder why China is not so enthusiastic about intervening in Iran or Iraq? They see a resolution to these issues as being better solved by diplomatic and political means - not by war, with which actually I agree, but their main eye is on the oil. Did you know that if car ownership in China ever reached the same levels per household as America, China would consume the total global annual oil supply to run them?

Just to keep itself fed, running, and earning money China is going to need to be everywhere. As a buyer of goods including raw materials and food, as a supplier of manufactured goods and services, as tourists, as consumers of products.

They will be doing business 24/7 on some continent or other. And it's going to involve the continents of Africa, the Middle East and Latin America like never before, ultimately creating a new trading region that will potentially put the West on the sidelines.

I think the title has moved on - a bloodless coup!

Hong Kong - A SAD City?

2013-04-28T17:26:16+08:00

You have probably heard of SAD ... or Seasonal Affective Disorder to give it a proper name. It means basically that if there is a lack of sunshine people get depressed and I am sure you have noticed it yourselves. How much happier do the folk around you seem when the sun is out? Many countries because of their geographic position will have a higher percentage of SAD sufferers than others. If you are in virtual darkness for most of the winter because it just doesn't get light for many hours each day you can understand the depressed feeling it would create. Others suffer a change in mood because of unusual weather patterns. Dubai today, for example has a lot of glum looking people around because it is - somewhat unusually for this time of the year - raining.

SAD, as the name suggests, is supposed to be a seasonal affliction, but I am getting a sense that in Hong Kong we are beginning to suffer from the syndrome on a regular, even annual rather than a seasonal basis.

Okay, maybe in Hong Kong I have to admit perhaps we do have a lot of things on our minds that could be distressing. Pollution is never pleasant. Striking dock workers, a recent phenomenon and by the way where did their Australian brethren come from to support them? (I wonder whether the Australian dockers union knew that some of their brothers had an all expenses paid trip to Hong Kong. And were trying to compare wages in Australia with those in Hong Kong - hello; real world!) There is the threat of a new Occupy Central movement in support of Universal Suffrage - this is going to be depressing for the many commuters who will have to thread their way past the debris of such a movement that seems to have been created to provide "grandstand" opportunities for the politicians involved. Perhaps the Government could consider hosing down the streets at night to keep them clean.

And then there is "Government" itself - that re-branded (but hard working) civil service that occupies the Governmental role, unelected and unremovable facing off against the elected de facto and permanent opposition who operate with no accountability for their actions.

Okay, perhaps there is a reason to be depressed after all. But has nobody got any good news out there? If we do, it is getting increasingly hard to find.

How many times did I hear former Chief Secretary Anson Chan, in extolling the virtues of Hong Kong in her promotion of the city overseas and indeed within Hong Kong itself, point to one our greater strengths - a "can do" attitude. This has become a rather petulant "won't do" attitude now. And it's not doing our future any good at all.

I am in the Middle East at present, where I visit from time to time, and where the attitude to the future is just a little different - despite the rain!! There is a recognition here that the world is not sitting on its hands and doing nothing. Investments here and in Sub Saharan Africa and In Latin America are growing quickly, and those who sit on their hands too long will get pins and needles. We are undertaking an exercise that looks at the future of the world, and the impact it is likely to have on business here. Business that is going to be done by younger people using technology far in advance of anything we know about today. Few older people running companies today have any idea as to how their businesses will be done in 10, 15 or 30 years time, yet they have to start putting in place the framework that will enable them to face up to new competition. Where new market players without traditional baggage, will be fierce competitors.

This is the sort of thinking that Hong Kong needs. As a City, even, not just its individual corporations.

The business community doesn't speak up enough, I get told, because they fear being "branded" as uncaring or sympathisers with the present form of Government, or worse, the Chief Executive who has still not been given much of a chance lets be honest (no pun intended), then the media will have a field day saying that comments from the business community - yes, the same community that creates jobs - are self serving.

Is the business community really willing to push the Government to do something about pollution, and no it does not all come from China, even if there are costs involved? Heaven knows, we tried a few years ago. But how come Tokyo and Seoul managed to clear up their heavily polluted cities (and please don't tell me it's all because of the wind that we are where we are!)?

But if we carry on doing things the old way, and if we allow a bunch of disruptive and grubby tents to be erected in the business district of Hong Kong, and do nothing about the levels of pollution, then we will be a SAD city in more ways than one.

North Korea - How Near Is The Finger To The Button?

2013-04-10T16:09:29+08:00

Much has been written about Li'l Kim in recent weeks as the world takes differing views on the seriousness of the threats coming out of North Korea.

He has certainly generated a lot of media attention, but as a good friend pointed out yesterday he must be a bit "miffed" about the death of Baroness Thatcher - seeing as how she has now taken pride of place in the media headlines.

What seems clear to most observers is that this recent spate of rhetoric is, as usual, less of a genuine threat. But the big difference this time is that no one really knows whose hand is hovering over the button marked "war".

Previous history might suggest that such threats were designed more to gain some sort of "pay-off", thereby enabling the country to stagger along from one famine to another. After all, no one really takes seriously the notion that North Korea has an armoury sufficient to pose a significant threat to the world at large, or over a sustained period of time. So, are the threats designed to make South Korea very uncomfortable? Sure. And China and probably Japan too and definitely the US. But, again, in general, troop movements in the North have not given rise to concerns that the rhetoric is likely to be supported by action.

To this unlearned observer there seems to be a power struggle going on behind the scenes. As I wrote a little over two years ago, in predicting the death of Kim senior, I suggested that Li'l Kim would fall foul of the generals and be ousted in a power struggle. He was young, untested, appeared to be uneducated and would not be able to stand up to a concerted effort by the generals to remove him.

Then, in a surprise to me anyway, Kim seemed to be gaining the upper hand when he purged his mentor, Ri Yong-ho, and sacked him from all his posts - including significantly, his position as Head of the Army. This happened some 9 months ago. But it now seems that this did not perhaps lead to the army heads into becoming more compliant, and heeding Kim's every word. And this, I believe, is why we are where are now. The Generals are revolting!! (You can take that comment how you like!)

Kim is having to pump up the stakes, create front page news, make people nervous and demonstrate through Kim-controlled media that he is a no nonsense leader, and he is focused on the "enemy" outside his borders. By doing that he reduces the internal tensions that seem to exist, as anyone who protests will be seen as unpatriotic.

But this is turning into a high stakes game of brinksmanship. But it is being played by a potentially impetuous juvenile whose finger may just slip and hit the wrong button! After all, where does he go from here? He has warned foreigners to leave South Korea because "he doesn't want foreigners to be harmed". That suggests he is prepared to bomb, or otherwise harm the ONLY country that could possibly help North Korea reach some sort of economic model for growth. Where's the logic in that? Of course, not a lot of what is happening is, in fact, logical.

He may test a nuclear weapon, but testing does not of itself achieve the goals established by the rhetoric. Thus his only last resort, in a power struggle where he has publicly set out his intentions, is to actually do something. If he fails - the Generals win, and I have no idea what that means for the country. Or there is a very high profile diplomatic solution, engineered probably by China which enables Kim to remove his hand from over the button without losing face. But that seems to be a long shot.

I am hopeful that it will all come to nothing, once again, but I am more nervous this time about the boy and the button!!

So It's Not Just Me Then ...

2013-04-02T15:58:28+08:00

An article in today's edition of The Times carries the headline "Too chummy by half? Why we don't want to be on first-name terms".

It seems that I am not alone in my dislike of being addressed by my first name by someone I don't know. A survey by Ask Jeeves, a search engine, discovered that overall 55% of responders to the survey preferred to be addressed by their title when spoken to, written to or emailed by a stranger. An even higher percentage disliked this "personalised impersonality" when it came from someone who was cold calling on the telephone.

I don't know, at the time I included my distaste for the practice in a recent Blog I thought maybe it was just me. Or perhapse it's the reserved Brits who don't go for this feeling of "We're all mates together" syndrome, or "fake friendliness" as it is referred to in the article. And as the article concludes, "There is nothing wrong with friendliness but it just doesn't wash when it comes from someone you have never met or even spoken to".

Hear Hear!

Direct Property - Direct Sales - Direct Pain!

2013-03-31T22:32:55+08:00

If you were hoping to find a “rant” regarding some recent experiences I have had about a company involved in direct sales of property, then I must disappoint you.

Following the posting of my Blog, the company took the trouble to get in touch, and to apologise for the experience I had with them. Also, and although not as a result of my Blog, I understand the person who made the telephone call to my PA is no longer with the company. A known problem apparently.

The company has expressed a concern that my Blog may damage their business, and have requested that I remove the post. I am flattered they think I have such influence over the business community; I don’t see it myself.

Nevertheless in view of the apology, the change of personnel, and in the interests of not wishing to stifle what is a legitimate and successful business, I have agreed to the request.